Just a few clarifications. The posted Queue code gives the segmentation fault when compiled with ocamlopt without threads. When bytecode-compiled, the code is accidentally safe, at least on my platform. The bytecode interpreter checks for signals when executing any of the `application' instructions or popping the exception handler. It just so happens that no function application instructions were executed in the critical section of the standard library Queue code. That is a mere accident however: a new version of the standard library (or Batteries) might add some sort of debugging printing; or the code generation will change to emit calls to auxiliary, debugging or tracing facilities.
Incidentally, comments in the bytecode interpreter justify a particular piece of code by saying that a signal handler may raise an exception. Thus Xavier Leroy certainly did allow for such signal handlers, at least as a possibility. Mark Shinwell wrote: > Specifically in the case of signal handlers, I would recommend > restricting processing in them to an absolute minimum, and in > particular not throwing exceptions. If this is the consensus, to which INRIA assents, it ought to be written in the user documentation, alongside of other warnings (like living in harmony with GC). At the same time, one should describe the recommended solution to Yit's original problem, to interrupt a long-running library function with a timeout. -- Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management and archives: https://sympa-roc.inria.fr/wws/info/caml-list Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
